| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/04/2008 01:56:29 PM · #1 |
I know this has been discussed before. I hope that if we are loud enough about it that Langdon will listen. In the past week I have been informed by a nice member here that one of my images was being used to promote a wakeboard event in Qatar. After a flurry of emails and lies about them getting it from a royalty free site they finally took it down but refused to pay usage. (it was still named with the "copyrighted_image_reuse_prohibited")
Yesterday I found a guy using it as part of his background on his myspace page. I sent him a polite email telling him that this was his "friendly request" that he take it down as it belonged to me, not him. This time it was a direct link from this site, not the whole page from this site, just the image.
Even though it would not make it right, no credit was given in either case. The response I got from the myspace guy was as follows: that is funny....
I will take it down since its time to change the page anyway. But that picture is all over the internet and even part of a published backgrounds offered for free on vairous sites. You getting to everyone that has this picture, and getting to the sites that have made it part of their backgounds would be a very difficult task for you. (i would say impossible) Being a photographer myself, I under you TRYING to protect your rights, but I fell that its too late. As a suggestion, you should try to gain credit for this photo rather than trying to get people to take it down. If you plan on using the internet with your pictures, you may want to use a third party software that will no allow people to take them. Good luck
We all know that there is no such software. :(
A quick search shows that there are tons of our shots out there being stolen, most through direct links to the image on this site. I for one am sick and tired of it.
I know it has been discussed before and I have no idea why it has not happened. But my suggestion is to give each photographer the option to have a watermark put on each of their images AFTER voting is done. That way it will not interfere with how it looks during voting. Then after voting is done each photog will have the option to go into their portfolio and put a checkmark beside "apply my watermark". Since we are not allowed to tell dpc to stop using our image if it is used in a challenge, why do we have to agree to let dpc leave it sit there forever to be stolen?
Why is this so tough to do?
Ernie |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 02:10:08 PM · #2 |
There are plenty of sites that do no let you right-click to save images. Seems to me we could at least do that. Also I would think that they could also stop people from direct linking to images. I've put images on a couple of hosting sites that I found later would not let me direct link to the image.
I don't know if the direct link thing would require it to be in a members only area or not. (That might be a reason to buy membership. Better protection for your images.)
Although I have nothing here I would be upset about someone using, who knows some day I might be good enough to care and I support those of you who do want their work protected. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 02:10:48 PM · #3 |
| Maybe even make it a "paid members only" option to encourage more paid members? I would be willing to pay double the regular $25 to have this option if it is a matter of cost. Please.........make it happen! |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 02:28:22 PM · #4 |
what would have to happen to make them
"not right clickable"? Could they still copy, then paste into pS or something,then resave? Another issue to think about. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 02:36:41 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by bergiekat:
what would have to happen to make them
"not right clickable"? Could they still copy, then paste into pS or something,then resave? Another issue to think about. |
being not right clickable and making the site non-linkable (for the image only) would be a step in the right direction. However anyone can make a copy of their screen using printscreen and then open photoshop and paste it in, then crop to get just the photo. However even that would help, as those that are so lazy they do not change the filename would likely be to lazy to go to the effort to do that.
Is that what you were talking about bergiekat?
ETA: also firefox users have the option of d/l aftermarket add ons that let them d/l any item embedded in a page, like images. So the only real answer is a combo of getting rid of right clicks, getting rid of direct linking of images, and giving us a watermark option.
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 14:38:34. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 02:36:54 PM · #6 |
I was on a site once and they had a pretty good idea (wish I could remember which one) but every time you right clicked on an image a little bubble popped up that stated the image was copyrighted and protected and not for general/public use and then a small link at the bottom to contact the photographer. But no image could be saved via right clicking. So with this, if it is tried, at least they get a message. After that, if they steal the image via other methods, it shows clear intent of theft.
I would also love to see no linking to images from external sites. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 02:40:24 PM · #7 |
Could someone link to all the previous discussions with the various explanations why things like right click protection don't work and are trivially bypassed, along with the problems they cause. Given that nothing has actually changed at all since this was discussed to death each time, it might save typing.
Hint: doing something that doesn't work in any significant way at all, while taking time and effort to do nothing and reducing legitimate functionality, is not a useful thing to do. It has no positive side - all negative or completely useless.
The best you can do is have it indicate that the image is copyright and don't use it without permission - the filename already does that and is a better solution.
Other than that - if you don't want your images used on the internet without your permission, don't put them on the internet. It's that simple.
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 14:42:50. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 02:44:20 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
also firefox users have the option of d/l aftermarket add ons that let them d/l any item embedded in a page, like images. |
Its already built in to every browser. Nothing aftermarket or fancy add-on.
In fact, it is the fundamental point of a browser.
Simplest solution would be to stop people seeing pictures. That'd fix it. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 02:47:23 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Could someone link to all the previous discussions with the various explanations why things like right click protection don't work and are trivially bypassed, along with the problems they cause. Given that nothing has actually changed at all since this was discussed to death each time, it might save typing.
Hint: doing something that doesn't work in any significant way at all, while taking time and effort to do nothing and reducing legitimate functionality, is not a useful thing to do. It has no positive side - all negative or completely useless.
The best you can do is have it indicate that the image is copyright and don't use it without permission - the filename already does that and is a better solution.
Other than that - if you don't want your images used on the internet without your permission, don't put them on the internet. It's that simple. |
Gordon, once again you have failed to read the orginal post, not to mention added a bunch of negativity to the discussion.
First of all the original post is asking for a watermark, I fail to see you addressing that.
second of all your assertion that because something only partly solves a problem but not totally it should automatically be discarded is absurd. If we can do something that might cut down on 50% of the stolen images, why is that not worthwhile? |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 02:51:13 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by basssman7:
also firefox users have the option of d/l aftermarket add ons that let them d/l any item embedded in a page, like images. |
Its already built in to every browser. Nothing aftermarket or fancy add-on.
In fact, it is the fundamental point of a browser.
Simplest solution would be to stop people seeing pictures. That'd fix it. |
LOL!!! |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 03:00:06 PM · #11 |
My feeling has always been that if you have a picture that you're worried about people stealing, don't put it on the Internet in any way, shape or form.
Watermarking the images would suck a lot of the enjoyment out of voting on the challenges, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 03:01:24 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
First of all the original post is asking for a watermark, I fail to see you addressing that. |
Wouldn't bother looking at watermarked images in voting at all. And since they won't be watermarked when presented there, anyone who wants to spend 5 seconds making an account can still access the non-watermarked images.
Don't post pics on the net if the idea of someone stealing them troubles you. It really is that simple. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 03:01:41 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Could someone link to all the previous discussions with the various explanations why things like right click protection don't work and are trivially bypassed, along with the problems they cause. Given that nothing has actually changed at all since this was discussed to death each time, it might save typing.
Hint: doing something that doesn't work in any significant way at all, while taking time and effort to do nothing and reducing legitimate functionality, is not a useful thing to do. It has no positive side - all negative or completely useless.
The best you can do is have it indicate that the image is copyright and don't use it without permission - the filename already does that and is a better solution.
Other than that - if you don't want your images used on the internet without your permission, don't put them on the internet. It's that simple. |
Gordon, once again you have failed to read the orginal post, not to mention added a bunch of negativity to the discussion.
First of all the original post is asking for a watermark, I fail to see you addressing that.
second of all your assertion that because something only partly solves a problem but not totally it should automatically be discarded is absurd. If we can do something that might cut down on 50% of the stolen images, why is that not worthwhile? |
I'm not adding negativity. I'm suggesting that ignoring all the previous thoughtful discussion is fairly pointless.
There is plenty of discussion on why people don't want watermarks, if you want to go read it. There are also pages of examples of why right click blocking isn't actually a protection for anything and only impacts legitimate usage, while doing nothing to protect images.
Right clicking doesn't solve any part of any problem. That appears to be the point that is being missed.
Displaying the images without watermarks prior to voting means they are available without watermarks.
Adding watermarks later isn't much of a solution either - as has been discussed at length.
Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it, apparently. You'd be the person who is failing to read the original posts, for now.
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 15:02:35. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 03:13:04 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm not adding negativity. I'm suggesting that ignoring all the previous thoughtful discussion is fairly pointless.
There is plenty of discussion on why people don't want watermarks, if you want to go read it. There are also pages of examples of why right click blocking isn't actually a protection for anything and only impacts legitimate usage, while doing nothing to protect images.
Right clicking doesn't solve any part of any problem. That appears to be the point that is being missed.
Displaying the images without watermarks prior to voting means they are available without watermarks.
Adding watermarks later isn't much of a solution either - as has been discussed at length.
Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it, apparently. You'd be the person who is failing to read the original posts, for now. |
Gordon, I really do not want to argue with you. However I must say that I realize stopping right clicking is not the complete answer and is easily circumvented and I have already stated that. However I fail to see how disabling it will prevent any "legitimate use" as you said.
If the images are watermarked after voting then yes, during that one week of voting, if you are a member you can see it without watermark. I doubt very much if the stealing of images from this site happens very much during voting. Adding a good watermark does help prevent stealing of images, and if they do steal it at least you would be getting credit for it.
If this thread bothers you so much, please feel free not to post in it from this point on.
You are an intelligent man and a talented photographer, however that does not mean that everyone agrees with you, so please let others continue to discuss. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 03:36:18 PM · #15 |
lol. If you disagree, feel free to stop posting.
Long live DPC! |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 03:37:35 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
... If the images are watermarked after voting then yes, during that one week of voting, if you are a member you can see it without watermark. I doubt very much if the stealing of images from this site happens very much during voting. Adding a good watermark does help prevent stealing of images, and if they do steal it at least you would be getting credit for it. ... |
I agree with this POV and think it's a good idea. Seems that your point about NOT watermarking until AFTER voting was missed? |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 03:44:37 PM · #17 |
| rabble rabble rabble rabble!!! |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 03:45:07 PM · #18 |
| Gordon! How could you not agree with the DPC masses and offend people on here? Quit having your own viewpoint and asking people to read the past threads that have hashed and re-hashed this over and over... silly ol' Scotsman! |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 04:03:14 PM · #19 |
i think the greatest thing that can occur is people changing their mentality and over-valuing their work. the internet is a medium for massive (and mostly free) information exchange. to try and hold something exclusively for yourself, locked down, and unusable by the general populous is both a tragedy and unrealistic.
you're not losing money. move on. they're not making money off your image. move on. they are not claiming your work as their own. move on. sure, it's courteous to provide credit and linkage ..but impossible to enforce.
join up with the 21st century and familiarize yourself with creativecommons.org.
otherwise ..don't put your crap online. save your prize possessions for private viewing and pleasure and wither away into obscurity. or embrace the technology and world reaching impact it has ..which includes the good and the bad.
in any case ..calm down and revel in the fact that your work has been so versatile in it's own marketing and distribution, far more so than you probably could have done by your own efforts. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 04:04:58 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Could someone link to all the previous discussions with the various explanations why things like right click protection don't work and are trivially bypassed, along with the problems they cause. Given that nothing has actually changed at all since this was discussed to death each time, it might save typing.
Hint: doing something that doesn't work in any significant way at all, while taking time and effort to do nothing and reducing legitimate functionality, is not a useful thing to do. It has no positive side - all negative or completely useless.
The best you can do is have it indicate that the image is copyright and don't use it without permission - the filename already does that and is a better solution.
Other than that - if you don't want your images used on the internet without your permission, don't put them on the internet. It's that simple. |
Gordon, once again you have failed to read the orginal post, not to mention added a bunch of negativity to the discussion.
First of all the original post is asking for a watermark, I fail to see you addressing that.
second of all your assertion that because something only partly solves a problem but not totally it should automatically be discarded is absurd. If we can do something that might cut down on 50% of the stolen images, why is that not worthwhile? |
I agree, if we can cut it down by some percentage, then it's worth implementing. Take it a step further and watermark everything for anyone who isn't logged in. Can people still make accounts and steal images - sure. But likely a smaller percentage, and perhaps it could be tracked.
As I see it, the images on DPC are here for the enjoyment of the users - not the regular Internet surfer. Throw up a few fences, even if it only keeps out the lazy portion.
Also, I'm not sure I understand the "but they can do a print-screen" argument. If you upload a 640x480 pixel file and 72 dpi, what's someone going to do with it via print screen? They can't enlarge it and have it look like anything. So either they'd get a smallish, watermarked image, or an enlarged image that's pixelated beyond recognition. Am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 04:26:13 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
However I fail to see how disabling it will prevent any "legitimate use" as you said.
|
I use an EXIF reader to look at the data included on many images on this site. Prevent right-click and I can't do this. I consider this a "legitimate use".
In any event as indicated by other posters, this has been addressed *MANY* times in the past and the Site owner hasn't seen fit to make any changes. Create a ticket and tell the site owners you'd like to see this change. Maybe you'll be the one that convinces Langdon to make the change. Discussing it here does nothing to increase your chances of success.
No image displayed on the web can be protected. But..... you might want to surf over to the Library of Congress and find out how to formally register your copy write.
When registered you can sue and collect much higher fees. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 04:40:43 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by basssman7:
However I fail to see how disabling it will prevent any "legitimate use" as you said.
|
I use an EXIF reader to look at the data included on many images on this site. Prevent right-click and I can't do this. I consider this a "legitimate use".
In any event as indicated by other posters, this has been addressed *MANY* times in the past and the Site owner hasn't seen fit to make any changes. Create a ticket and tell the site owners you'd like to see this change. Maybe you'll be the one that convinces Langdon to make the change. Discussing it here does nothing to increase your chances of success.
No image displayed on the web can be protected. But..... you might want to surf over to the Library of Congress and find out how to formally register your copy write.
When registered you can sue and collect much higher fees. |
Edit: Almost forgot....
 |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 05:26:24 PM · #23 |
hehehe. Love that dead horse gif, it is different them most that you see.
I never said "if you do not agree, stop posting". I simply said that just because some do not agree does not mean they cannot discuss it, so please let them do so. I even said please.
There are very few images on here that still have the exif included on it. Most people use the "save for web" option to make the file size smaller by getting rid of that info, allowing for higher quality images to be posted.
I still fail to see any argument being made that would make watermarking after voting (and making it optional so no one is forced into it) a bad idea. I am kind of bewildered as to why any photographer would be arguing against something that would help protect their images from misuse.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 05:54:36 PM · #24 |
Consider, for a moment, all of those folks that post here asking for editing help on images. We can just go to the photo, save it, re-edit, and re-post to our workshop with steps to help that person out. Sometimes, in the B&A threads, I like to try to repeat someone's edit so I can learn how they did something.
If right click is disabled, that messes that all up. It would take away some of the learning and teaching.
Watermarks on challenge entries (even after voting) mess with the visual pleasure of the photograph.
I'll just be frank. I don't see it happening. Look for other alternatives.
Some people put a disclaimer on their photographer's comments. I know  idnic does and I recently saw another, but can't remember who. Leroy used to do it as well.
My $20,000.00 worth... |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 06:00:21 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
I still fail to see any argument being made that would make watermarking after voting (and making it optional so no one is forced into it) a bad idea. |
I (and I would imagine many others) have no desire to view watermarked images. I would probably let my membership expire if a decent percentage of other users started watermarking their images. Sounds like a good way for Langdon to lose money to me, and thus a possible reason why this hasn't been implemented. |
|
